Baptists

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your prompt response, Ironhorse.

 

However, I note that it was carefully-worded so as to avoid addressing the main issue - whether or not you made a conscious effort to skeptically appraise of your parents Baptist beliefs before you decided to become a Baptist.  Being allowed to read books is not the same as making that skeptical appraisal.  So, having already framed the question in the negative, I will now put it to you again, framed in a positive way so that you can easily respond with an affirmative (Yes) or with a negative (No).

.

.

.

"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of your parents Baptist beliefs..?"

.

.

.

Yes or No..?

 

 

[ironhorse]

Thanks for your prompt response, Ironhorse.

However, I note that it was carefully-worded so as to avoid addressing the main issue - whether or not you made a conscious effort to skeptically appraise of your parents Baptist beliefs before you decided to become a Baptist.  Being allowed to read books is not the same as making that skeptical appraisal.  So, having already framed the question in the negative, I will now put it to you again, framed in a positive way so that you can easily respond with an affirmative (Yes) or with a negative (No).
.
.
.
"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of your parents Baptist beliefs..?"
.
.
.
Yes or No..?

 

~ bornagainathiest

 

 

 

The way the question is worded, I will answer no.

 

I did not base my conclusion on my parent's belief.

 

I did a conscious skeptical appraisal of historic Baptists beliefs compared to other denominations.

[midniterider]

IH, did you ever not want to go to church? And if so, were you allowed to not go to church?

 

Both of my parents were generally negative about religion while I was growing up. And so I became an adult with zero interest in church or religion.

 

Your father was a baptist minister and , strangely enough you found the baptist denomination to be the 'right' one. Would your parents have been unhappy if you had decided to be an atheist after reading the book on atheism that was in your house? Or would they have been ok with that?

 

I did a couple church functions with the next door neighbor pastor's church , but I dont recall if my parents were concerned or not.

[ironhorse]

"IH, did you ever not want to go to church? And if so, were you allowed to not go to church?"

 

~midniterider

 

 

As a child we attended Church three times a week. I did not have choice, unless I was sick.

 

As a teenager, I could say I did not feel like or not going today.

They would say they would miss me or wish you would go, but they did not make a scene out it.

 

My year working after high school and my years in college, I did not attend at all.

I commuted to college, so I was still living at home.  

[Mythra]

So, ironhorse - I was a baptist too for a time.  One of the things that was preached there:  the Bible is a perfect book. Not a single contradiction or mistake. Not a single failed prophecy. That's how we can know it was authored by God.

 

So I just have one question for you.  Is there a single thing in the bible that you have read, and you know for sure, (or at least your ability to reason tells you) that it never happened?

[Guest Furball]

As a teenager, I could say I did not feel like or not going today.

They would say they would miss me or wish you would go, but they did not make a scene out it.

 

It is nice to see that your parents did not force you to go as a teenager. Usually religious parents are very strict about getting their kids into church every sunday. 

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your prompt response, Ironhorse.

 

However, I note that it was carefully-worded so as to avoid addressing the main issue - whether or not you made a conscious effort to skeptically appraise of your parents Baptist beliefs before you decided to become a Baptist.  Being allowed to read books is not the same as making that skeptical appraisal.  So, having already framed the question in the negative, I will now put it to you again, framed in a positive way so that you can easily respond with an affirmative (Yes) or with a negative (No).

.

.

.

"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of your parents Baptist beliefs..?"

.

.

.

Yes or No..?

 

~ bornagainathiest

 

 

 

The way the question is worded, I will answer no.

 

I did not base my conclusion on my parent's belief.

 

I did a conscious skeptical appraisal of historic Baptists beliefs compared to other denominations.

 

Ironhorse,

 

I did not ask you if you made any kind of comparison between historic Baptist beliefs and those of other denominations.

 

I asked you only about your parents Baptist beliefs.

 

I therefore need to re-word my question so as to bring you back to the issue under discussion here - which is your parents beliefs.

.

.

.

"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of only the Baptist beliefs of your parents..?"

[ironhorse]

Ironhorse,

I did not ask you if you made any kind of comparison between historic Baptist beliefs and those of other denominations.

I asked you only about your parents Baptist beliefs.

I therefore need to re-word my question so as to bring you back to the issue under discussion here - which is your parents beliefs.
.
.
.
"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of only the Baptist beliefs of your parents..?"

 

~BAA

 

 

No.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse,

 

I did not ask you if you made any kind of comparison between historic Baptist beliefs and those of other denominations.

 

I asked you only about your parents Baptist beliefs.

 

I therefore need to re-word my question so as to bring you back to the issue under discussion here - which is your parents beliefs.

.

.

.

"Did you decide to become a Baptist on the basis of a conscious skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of only the Baptist beliefs of your parents..?"

 

~BAA

 

 

No.

 

Thank you, Ironhorse.

 

So, since you didn't make a conscious skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of only the Baptist beliefs of your parents before becoming a Baptist...

 

...please now make a conscious skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of the point raised by Astreja, which I copy below.

 

Posted 19 October 2015 - 02:08 PM

• Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith.
• Baptists deliberately violate the concept of no coercion by using the concept of hell.
• Therefore, Baptists who use hell as a proselytizing tactic are hypocritical, or lying about the "no coercion" principle, or haven't gotten the memo about what "no coercion" actually means.

 

[ironhorse]

Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith.

 

Forced is the key word. Baptists did not participate in the Spanish Inquisition is one example. While there are a few examples in history where extreme fanatics calling themselves Baptist have committed atrocities, these are rare exceptions. As it goes there are some bad apples in every group, even a generally good group.

 

Baptists deliberately violate the concept of no coercion by using the concept of hell.

I do understand why some might view this as forced coercion. Hell is not a pleasant thought, I agree, but I would counter that neither is total oblivion of a person after death is not a pleasant thought. I don’t see how accepting and declaring a clear teaching of scripture is forced coercion. Jesus spoke and warned about hell several times in his teachings. If I just wanted to toss out what I did not like or that some find offensive, I might as well drop Christianity.

 

Therefore, Baptists who use hell as a proselytizing tactic are hypocritical, or lying about the "no coercion" principle, or haven't gotten the memo about what "no coercion" actually means.

 

Proselytizing is not a dirty word. It simply means to to induce someone to convert to one's faith. Jesus told his followers to tell others. The historic principles that Baptists use to proclaim and present this message do so in a way that I do not view as forced conversion.

 

[ironhorse]

1. Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith. God Himself does not force people. Religion is purely voluntary. Baptists support the freedom of the individual conscience to choose to worship God or not worship.

Baptists do not agree with a state sponsored religion or a state church. Historically, Baptists have played a key role in encouraging religious freedom and separation of church and state.

 

 

2.The Priesthood of the Believer

 

The priesthood of each believer in Baptist thought is tied closely to another concept, that of soul competency. Each person has a God-given competence to know and follow God’s will. A decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior is an individual decision; no one can make it for another. It is a free choice of the individual, not from family or government or others.

Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.

Each believer priest has a responsibility to be committed to Christ and to share Christ through word and deed.
Therefore, a church does not have only one priest. Potentially it has many who communicate the love and forgiveness of God and demonstrate concern and compassion of one believer for another.

[florduh]

In America, deciding which sect of Christianity suits one's taste is considered to be an unbiased study of religion.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Ironhorse.

 

Your reply is not an example of a skeptical appraisal of the internal logic of the point raised by Astreja.

 

I suspect this is because you do not understand the internal logic of the argument she was making.

 

However, I will come back to what the internal logic is, once I've made some observations about what you've written.

 

 

Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith.

 

Forced is the key word. Baptists did not participate in the Spanish Inquisition is one example.  While there are a few examples in history where extreme fanatics calling themselves Baptist have committed atrocities, these are rare exceptions. As it goes there are some bad apples in every group, even a generally good group.

 

You have focused on the past history of the Baptist denomination and once again compared it to other religious groups.

A comparative was not asked for and is not needed here.  Astreja's sentence concerns only the present.  She didn't write, 'Baptists used to contend...'  or 'Baptists historically contended...'.  Instead she wrote, 'Baptists contend...' which is the present tense.  She kept the focus of her point squarely on present things - on what happens today and not what happened in the past.  Therefore Ironhorse, what you've written is not relevant to her argument.

 

Baptists deliberately violate the concept of no coercion by using the concept of hell.

 

I do understand why some might view this as forced coercion. Hell is not a pleasant thought, I agree, but I would counter that neither is total oblivion of a person after death is not a pleasant thought. I don’t see how accepting and declaring a clear teaching of scripture is forced coercion. Jesus spoke and warned about hell several times in his teachings. If I just wanted to toss out what I did not like or that some find offensive, I might as well drop Christianity.

 

Your above comments are not a made from a skeptical p.o.v., Ironhorse.

You are trying to justify and validate that which you believe by faith.  I did not ask you to do that.  Instead I asked you look at Astreja's words thru the eyes of skepticism, not the eyes of faith.  So, once again, what you've written isn't relevant.

 

 

Therefore, Baptists who use hell as a proselytizing tactic are hypocritical, or lying about the "no coercion" principle, or haven't gotten the memo about what "no coercion" actually means.

 

Proselytizing is not a dirty word. It simply means to to induce someone to convert to one's faith. Jesus told his followers to tell others. The historic principles that Baptists use to proclaim and present this message do so in a way that I do not view as forced conversion.

 

Proselytizing is a dirty word - if it's being done hypocritically.  Which is Astreja's point.  

Baptists say that coercion must not be used when proselytizing.  But if they say to a sinner that all who reject Jesus will go to Hell, then they are coercing that person with the threat of Hell.  Which directly violates their own, 'no coercion' rule.   Even if the Baptist doing the proselytizing is doing so gently, sympathetically and in genuine love and concern for the sinner, they are still coercing that person with the threat of Hell.  No matter how noble the intentions of the Baptist and how much they sugarcoat the message, it's still coercion.  

 

 

Now, I see that you've posted another message while I've been typing this reply out.

 

This second post also misses Astreja's point of the contradiction between the Baptist rule of 'no coercion' and their use of Hell to coerce sinners.

 

So what is the internal logic of her argument, Ironhorse?  What are you failing to see and realize and understand?

.

.

.

To find out, please look at these points and note how # 1 and # 2 contradict each other.

 

1.  Baptists cannot use coercion when proselytizing.

2.  Baptist use Hell as a means of coercion when proselytizing.

3.  Therefore, Baptists do coerce when proselytizing - which makes them hypocrites.

 

The internal logic of Astreja's argument is very, very simple Ironhorse.

 

If a person says they must not do something and then they do it, they are a hypocrite.

.

.

.

Please think about this skeptically and get back to me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[duderonomy]

I just want to throw in a couple of things...

 

It seems to me that what Ironhorse is saying is that for him, Christianity was a foregone conclusion.  The only decision he made was would he be a Baptist as opposed to some other Christian denomination. I'm assuming that his parent's library didn't have a lot of Bart Erhman or Richard Dawkins books in it.

 

Also, while I agree and upvoted Astreja's coercion post,  I suppose that telling someone about how to 'flee the wrath to come' could also be seen as giving a warning if a fiery Hell is also a foregone conclusion.

It's not a gun to the head "your money or your life" situation, it's more like the weatherman telling me there's a tornado coming down my street. The weatherman doesn't coerce me to head to the basement, he gives a warning of what is coming, and suggests a way to safety.   

[bornagainathiest]

I just want to throw in a couple of things...

 

It seems to me that what Ironhorse is saying is that for him, Christianity was a foregone conclusion.  The only decision he made was would he be a Baptist as opposed to some other Christian denomination. I'm assuming that his parent's library didn't have a lot of Bart Erhman or Richard Dawkins books in it.

 

Also, while I agree and upvoted Astreja's coercion post,  I suppose that telling someone about how to 'flee the wrath to come' could also be seen as giving a warning if a fiery Hell is also a foregone conclusion.

It's not a gun to the head "your money or your life" situation, it's more like the weatherman telling me there's a tornado coming down my street. The weatherman doesn't coerce me to head to the basement, he gives a warning of what is coming, and suggests a way to safety.   

 

So how can you run away from an inevitable fate and the foregone conclusion of Hell, Dude..?

 

Is there any other option open to you except to use Jesus to save you from these things..?

.

.

.

No..?

.

.

.

Not much of a free choice then is it..?

 

And if a Baptist isn't giving you a free choice, then what are they doing..?

 

Coercing you under threat of eternal torment, perhaps..?

[bornagainathiest]

I just want to throw in a couple of things...

 

It seems to me that what Ironhorse is saying is that for him, Christianity was a foregone conclusion.  The only decision he made was would he be a Baptist as opposed to some other Christian denomination. I'm assuming that his parent's library didn't have a lot of Bart Erhman or Richard Dawkins books in it.

 

Also, while I agree and upvoted Astreja's coercion post,  I suppose that telling someone about how to 'flee the wrath to come' could also be seen as giving a warning if a fiery Hell is also a foregone conclusion.

It's not a gun to the head "your money or your life" situation, it's more like the weatherman telling me there's a tornado coming down my street. The weatherman doesn't coerce me to head to the basement, he gives a warning of what is coming, and suggests a way to safety.   

 

Oh and another thing, Dude.

If there's a weatherman telling you there's a tornado approaching, would you automatically believe him..?  You see there an issue of faith and trust involved in his warning.  If he told this but gave you no evidence that his warning was true, but simply required you to take it on faith, then is he really offering you a free choice..?

 

Ditto with Baptists proselytizing.

They require you to take it on faith from them that Hell is your inevitable fate if you don't believe in Jesus.  They offer no evidence that you can objectively test that this is so.  They require you to decide in the total absence of evidence.  That you make the most important decision you can ever make without being able to check anything.

 

So, is an evidence-free, all or nothing decision, made under the threat of eternal suffering really a free and fair one..?

 

That's NOT coercion..?

[duderonomy]

 

I just want to throw in a couple of things...

 

It seems to me that what Ironhorse is saying is that for him, Christianity was a foregone conclusion.  The only decision he made was would he be a Baptist as opposed to some other Christian denomination. I'm assuming that his parent's library didn't have a lot of Bart Erhman or Richard Dawkins books in it.

 

Also, while I agree and upvoted Astreja's coercion post,  I suppose that telling someone about how to 'flee the wrath to come' could also be seen as giving a warning if a fiery Hell is also a foregone conclusion.

It's not a gun to the head "your money or your life" situation, it's more like the weatherman telling me there's a tornado coming down my street. The weatherman doesn't coerce me to head to the basement, he gives a warning of what is coming, and suggests a way to safety.   

 

Oh and another thing, Dude.

If there's a weatherman telling you there's a tornado approaching, would you automatically believe him..?  You see there an issue of faith and trust involved in his warning.  If he told this but gave you no evidence that his warning was true, but simply required you to take it on faith, then is he really offering you a free choice..?

 

Ditto with Baptists proselytizing.

They require you to take it on faith from them that Hell is your inevitable fate if you don't believe in Jesus.  They offer no evidence that you can objectively test that this is so.  They require you to decide in the total absence of evidence.  That you make the most important decision you can ever make without being able to check anything.

 

So, is an evidence-free, all or nothing decision, made under the threat of eternal suffering really a free and fair one..?

 

That's NOT coercion..?

 

 

BAA,

 

I was just remembering what I thought about Hell and warnings back in the day.  I didn't see Hell as a punishment for unbelief.

Hell was already there, having been created for the Devil and his angels. Who was going there in the end? Everybody...but then Jesus and the cross, because blah blah blah.

That's an oversimplified version of it, but what I'm saying is in the believer's mind, it isn't necessarily a coercion to warn somebody.

 

Consider a doctor that tells you, "If you don't take this pill, you'll die".  Is he forcing you to take the pill, or warning you of what will happen if you don't?   See what I mean?

 

The big difference of course is that a weatherman or a doctor are usually pretty accurate, and one does well to listen to their warnings.  They have evidence.  But to the Christian, Hell is just as real as the tornado and the illness and their faith is their evidence.  Warning a person to flee the wrath to come, in their minds, is just that...a warning. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't necessarily so that a Christian proselytizer uses coercion in the sense of coercion being a tool to manipulate a person's decision about Jesus.  I'm just throwing out an alternative way of looking at it.

[ironhorse]

1. Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith. God Himself does not force people. Religion is purely voluntary. Baptists support the freedom of the individual conscience to choose to worship God or not worship.
Baptists do not agree with a state sponsored religion or a state church. Historically, Baptists have played a key role in encouraging religious freedom and separation of church and state.


2.The Priesthood of the Believer

The priesthood of each believer in Baptist thought is tied closely to another concept, that of soul competency. Each person has a God-given competence to know and follow God’s will. A decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior is an individual decision; no one can make it for another. It is a free choice of the individual, not from family or government or others.

 

Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.

 

Each believer priest has a responsibility to be committed to Christ and to share Christ through word and deed.
Therefore, a church does not have only one priest. Potentially it has many who communicate the love and forgiveness of God and demonstrate concern and compassion of one believer for another.

 

 

3. The Bible as Authoritative for Faith and Practice

 

Baptists through the centuries have insisted that the Bible is the sole ultimate written authority for Christian faith and practice. They have resisted those who claimed otherwise, including popes, kings, bishops, pastors and teachers. Both religious and secular powers have persecuted Baptists for this commitment to the authority of the Bible.

 

Basically Baptists have considered the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice because of its very nature. Baptists have insisted that the divine nature of the Bible is the basis of its authority. No other writing compares to the Bible. The Bible stands alone among all other writings in that it is uniquely from God and about God.

Jesus Christ is the most complete revelation of God. The Bible reveals Jesus Christ as the Lord of all. The Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Bible go hand in hand; they are not contradictory but rather they are complementary.

 

 

 

4.Salvation by Grace  

 

Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that all human beings have chosen to sin, that is, to disobey God. The consequence of sin is eternal death. Persons are not capable of saving themselves from this plight. God, out of love for humankind, has provided salvation (John 3:16).

God’s gift of salvation is available through faith in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. By his life and by his death on the cross, Jesus offers a way from eternal death to eternal life. That way is an expression of God’s grace. The way can be walked only by faith (Romans 5:1-2).

Although the Bible uses different word pictures to describe how Jesus provides salvation for lost humanity, in each case the message is clear: Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Some denominations have included such things as baptism, church membership, good works or sacraments as necessary for salvation. Baptists have insisted that salvation comes only by faith in God’s grace gift of Jesus.

 

 

5.The Autonomy of Baptist Churches

 

Every Baptist church is autonomous. Being an autonomous church is a large part of what it means to be a Baptist church. Baptists use the term “church” to refer to a local congregation of baptized believers and not to the Baptist denomination as a whole. Therefore, to use the term “The Baptist Church” is incorrect when referring to the Baptist denomination in general. Each local congregation is autonomous, so there is really no such thing as The Baptist Church.

 

Autonomy means that each Baptist church, among other things, selects its pastoral leadership, determines its worship form, decides financial matters and directs other church-related affairs without outside control or supervision. Baptist denominational organizations such as associations of churches and state and national conventions have no authority over a Baptist church. For any one of these organizations to attempt to exercise control over an individual church is to violate a basic Baptist conviction about polity.

 

 

6. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Are Symbols

 

Baptists usually use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even if “sacraments” is used, it is never intended to imply that either of these two is necessary for a person to be saved.

 

Baptists consistently declare that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbols and are not necessary for salvation. They are nonetheless a significant part of Baptist practice and worship.

 

Because baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbolic, the use of the proper symbols is important. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus that has made possible our salvation. Baptism also symbolizes that a person through faith in Christ has passed from death to life and that this person has identified with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

 

Believing that the Lord’s Supper and baptism are symbolic does not mean that Baptists believe they are inconsequential. Baptists believe that both of these are of great significance.

They are important because of their divine origin. They are not human creations but given by God to assist us in declaring and sharing the gospel (1 Corinthians 11:26) and motivating us to live the Christian life (1 Corinthians 10:16-33; 11:29).

 

 

7. Baptists and Religious Freedom

 

 Baptists were among a few in the struggle for religious freedom, but at great cost over a long period of time. In fact, religious freedom has been, and still is, very rare. In the earliest days of the Christian movement, government officials severely persecuted Christians. Throughout the Middle Ages and the era of the Protestant Reformation, religious freedom was practically nonexistent, as both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches enlisted the aid of governments to persecute those who disagreed with their doctrines.

 

In England, Thomas Helwys (c.1556- 1616), credited with being the first Baptist pastor on English soil, dared to challenge the king’s claim to be authoritative in religious matters. Helwys wrote a booklet in 1612 titled The Mystery of Iniquity and sent an autographed copy to King James I with a personal inscription in which he declared, “The King is a mortal man and not God, therefore hath no power over immortal souls of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them.”

 

For Helwys’ brave declaration of Baptist convictions about religious freedom, King James had him thrown in prison where he died … for the cause of religious freedom, not just for Baptists but for all people. Many others suffered for the cause. For example, John Bunyan (1628- 1688), author of Pilgrim’s Progress, suffered in an English jail for many years because as a Baptist pastor he would not accept limits on religious freedom.

 

In America, Roger Williams (1603-1683) was persecuted for his views on religious freedom. In January of 1636, he fled Massachusetts and took refuge with Indian friends. In the spring, he founded the colony of Rhode Island with a guarantee of liberty of conscience for all citizens. He also helped establish the first Baptist church in the western hemisphere.

 

However, religious freedom was a scarce commodity throughout the New World. Baptists launched efforts up and down the eastern seaboard to bring about religious liberty. Baptists were publicly flogged, imprisoned and fined by government officials and beaten and ridiculed by people unsympathetic to their cause.

 

Finally, through efforts by leaders such as Isaac Backus (1724-1806) in New England and John Leland (1754-1841) in Virginia, the Baptist voice, joined by others, was heeded. For example, Leland reportedly met with James Madison under an oak tree in Orange County, VA, and secured Madison’s pledge to work for an amendment to the new Constitution to provide for religious freedom. The Constitution of the United States, at first flawed by its lack of guarantee of religious freedom, was amended under Madison’s leadership to provide such a guarantee. For the first time in history, a nation provided full religious freedom for its citizens.

 

 

8. The Bases for Religious Freedom

 

Why were Baptists willing to pay such a high price for religious freedom? Why did they not settle for mere tolerance but instead campaigned for religious freedom, not just for themselves but for all? The answer is found in basic Baptist convictions about the nature of the Christian faith.

 

The Baptist devotion to religious freedom is closely related to other biblical truths that comprise the Baptist mosaic of beliefs and practices. Freedom is an integral part of these.

 

• Freedom to follow Christ. The Bible reveals that Jesus as Lord calls for people to follow him (Matthew 7:21-27; 16:24-25). This fellowship, however, is to be voluntary, never coerced. Furthermore, people should be free to follow Christ, not prevented by any church or government. Salvation in Christ is by a faith response to God’s grace gift of his Son (Ephesians 2:8-10). The freedom to proclaim, hear and respond to this good news ought never to be curtailed.

 

• Freedom to read and interpret the Bible. The Bible is authoritative for faith and practice. Baptists insist that each person who responds by faith in Christ becomes a believer priest with a God-given competency to understand and apply the Bible with guidance from the Holy Spirit. Neither church nor government officials ought to obstruct Bible study nor dictate what the Bible teaches. Each person should be free to do that for herself or himself.

 

• Freedom to be baptized. Baptists insist that baptism ought to be administered only to someone who voluntarily commits to faith in Christ (Romans 6:3-5; Collosians 2:12). Never should baptism be forced on anyone. Neither should anyone prevent a person from choosing to be baptized.

 

• Freedom to choose and support a church. The Bible teaches that a church is a voluntary fellowship of baptized believers in Christ who voluntarily support its ministry (Acts 2:47; 2 Corinthians 9:7). Baptists, therefore, strongly oppose the concept of a state-supported church or of the use of tax funds to finance the ministry of a church.

 

• Freedom to govern a church. In Christ and through the Holy Spirit, believer priests are competent to govern themselves in an autonomous church (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Therefore, they should be free to do so apart from efforts of control by either church or government authorities as long as public health and safety are not endangered.

 

• Freedom to witness and minister. Baptists believe that believer priests have responsibility to share the gospel with others and to minister to others in Christ’s name. Thus Baptists insist that people ought to be free to evangelize and minister without interference from any human authorities (Acts 5:29-42).

 

 

 

*My source for this material was from The People Called Baptists George Daniel, 1919

and Baptists Distinctives William Pinson, 2007

[bornagainathiest]

1. Baptists contend that there can be no forced coercion in matters of religious faith or non-faith. God Himself does not force people. Religion is purely voluntary. Baptists support the freedom of the individual conscience to choose to worship God or not worship.

Baptists do not agree with a state sponsored religion or a state church. Historically, Baptists have played a key role in encouraging religious freedom and separation of church and state.

 

 

2.The Priesthood of the Believer

 

The priesthood of each believer in Baptist thought is tied closely to another concept, that of soul competency. Each person has a God-given competence to know and follow God’s will. A decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior is an individual decision; no one can make it for another. It is a free choice of the individual, not from family or government or others.

 

Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.

 

Each believer priest has a responsibility to be committed to Christ and to share Christ through word and deed.

Therefore, a church does not have only one priest. Potentially it has many who communicate the love and forgiveness of God and demonstrate concern and compassion of one believer for another.

 

 

3. The Bible as Authoritative for Faith and Practice

 

Baptists through the centuries have insisted that the Bible is the sole ultimate written authority for Christian faith and practice. They have resisted those who claimed otherwise, including popes, kings, bishops, pastors and teachers. Both religious and secular powers have persecuted Baptists for this commitment to the authority of the Bible.

 

Basically Baptists have considered the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice because of its very nature. Baptists have insisted that the divine nature of the Bible is the basis of its authority. No other writing compares to the Bible. The Bible stands alone among all other writings in that it is uniquely from God and about God.

Jesus Christ is the most complete revelation of God. The Bible reveals Jesus Christ as the Lord of all. The Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Bible go hand in hand; they are not contradictory but rather they are complementary.

 

 

 

4.Salvation by Grace  

 

Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that all human beings have chosen to sin, that is, to disobey God. The consequence of sin is eternal death. Persons are not capable of saving themselves from this plight. God, out of love for humankind, has provided salvation (John 3:16).

God’s gift of salvation is available through faith in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. By his life and by his death on the cross, Jesus offers a way from eternal death to eternal life. That way is an expression of God’s grace. The way can be walked only by faith (Romans 5:1-2).

Although the Bible uses different word pictures to describe how Jesus provides salvation for lost humanity, in each case the message is clear: Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Some denominations have included such things as baptism, church membership, good works or sacraments as necessary for salvation. Baptists have insisted that salvation comes only by faith in God’s grace gift of Jesus.

 

 

5.The Autonomy of Baptist Churches

 

Every Baptist church is autonomous. Being an autonomous church is a large part of what it means to be a Baptist church. Baptists use the term “church” to refer to a local congregation of baptized believers and not to the Baptist denomination as a whole. Therefore, to use the term “The Baptist Church” is incorrect when referring to the Baptist denomination in general. Each local congregation is autonomous, so there is really no such thing as The Baptist Church.

 

Autonomy means that each Baptist church, among other things, selects its pastoral leadership, determines its worship form, decides financial matters and directs other church-related affairs without outside control or supervision. Baptist denominational organizations such as associations of churches and state and national conventions have no authority over a Baptist church. For any one of these organizations to attempt to exercise control over an individual church is to violate a basic Baptist conviction about polity.

 

 

6. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Are Symbols

 

Baptists usually use the term “ordinances” rather than “sacraments” when referring to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even if “sacraments” is used, it is never intended to imply that either of these two is necessary for a person to be saved.

 

Baptists consistently declare that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbols and are not necessary for salvation. They are nonetheless a significant part of Baptist practice and worship.

 

Because baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbolic, the use of the proper symbols is important. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus that has made possible our salvation. Baptism also symbolizes that a person through faith in Christ has passed from death to life and that this person has identified with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

 

Believing that the Lord’s Supper and baptism are symbolic does not mean that Baptists believe they are inconsequential. Baptists believe that both of these are of great significance.

They are important because of their divine origin. They are not human creations but given by God to assist us in declaring and sharing the gospel (1 Corinthians 11:26) and motivating us to live the Christian life (1 Corinthians 10:16-33; 11:29).

 

 

7. Baptists and Religious Freedom

 

 Baptists were among a few in the struggle for religious freedom, but at great cost over a long period of time. In fact, religious freedom has been, and still is, very rare. In the earliest days of the Christian movement, government officials severely persecuted Christians. Throughout the Middle Ages and the era of the Protestant Reformation, religious freedom was practically nonexistent, as both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches enlisted the aid of governments to persecute those who disagreed with their doctrines.

 

In England, Thomas Helwys (c.1556- 1616), credited with being the first Baptist pastor on English soil, dared to challenge the king’s claim to be authoritative in religious matters. Helwys wrote a booklet in 1612 titled The Mystery of Iniquity and sent an autographed copy to King James I with a personal inscription in which he declared, “The King is a mortal man and not God, therefore hath no power over immortal souls of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them.”

 

For Helwys’ brave declaration of Baptist convictions about religious freedom, King James had him thrown in prison where he died … for the cause of religious freedom, not just for Baptists but for all people. Many others suffered for the cause. For example, John Bunyan (1628- 1688), author of Pilgrim’s Progress, suffered in an English jail for many years because as a Baptist pastor he would not accept limits on religious freedom.

 

In America, Roger Williams (1603-1683) was persecuted for his views on religious freedom. In January of 1636, he fled Massachusetts and took refuge with Indian friends. In the spring, he founded the colony of Rhode Island with a guarantee of liberty of conscience for all citizens. He also helped establish the first Baptist church in the western hemisphere.

 

However, religious freedom was a scarce commodity throughout the New World. Baptists launched efforts up and down the eastern seaboard to bring about religious liberty. Baptists were publicly flogged, imprisoned and fined by government officials and beaten and ridiculed by people unsympathetic to their cause.

 

Finally, through efforts by leaders such as Isaac Backus (1724-1806) in New England and John Leland (1754-1841) in Virginia, the Baptist voice, joined by others, was heeded. For example, Leland reportedly met with James Madison under an oak tree in Orange County, VA, and secured Madison’s pledge to work for an amendment to the new Constitution to provide for religious freedom. The Constitution of the United States, at first flawed by its lack of guarantee of religious freedom, was amended under Madison’s leadership to provide such a guarantee. For the first time in history, a nation provided full religious freedom for its citizens.

 

 

8. The Bases for Religious Freedom

 

Why were Baptists willing to pay such a high price for religious freedom? Why did they not settle for mere tolerance but instead campaigned for religious freedom, not just for themselves but for all? The answer is found in basic Baptist convictions about the nature of the Christian faith.

 

The Baptist devotion to religious freedom is closely related to other biblical truths that comprise the Baptist mosaic of beliefs and practices. Freedom is an integral part of these.

 

• Freedom to follow Christ. The Bible reveals that Jesus as Lord calls for people to follow him (Matthew 7:21-27; 16:24-25). This fellowship, however, is to be voluntary, never coerced. Furthermore, people should be free to follow Christ, not prevented by any church or government. Salvation in Christ is by a faith response to God’s grace gift of his Son (Ephesians 2:8-10). The freedom to proclaim, hear and respond to this good news ought never to be curtailed.

 

• Freedom to read and interpret the Bible. The Bible is authoritative for faith and practice. Baptists insist that each person who responds by faith in Christ becomes a believer priest with a God-given competency to understand and apply the Bible with guidance from the Holy Spirit. Neither church nor government officials ought to obstruct Bible study nor dictate what the Bible teaches. Each person should be free to do that for herself or himself.

 

• Freedom to be baptized. Baptists insist that baptism ought to be administered only to someone who voluntarily commits to faith in Christ (Romans 6:3-5; Collosians 2:12). Never should baptism be forced on anyone. Neither should anyone prevent a person from choosing to be baptized.

 

• Freedom to choose and support a church. The Bible teaches that a church is a voluntary fellowship of baptized believers in Christ who voluntarily support its ministry (Acts 2:47; 2 Corinthians 9:7). Baptists, therefore, strongly oppose the concept of a state-supported church or of the use of tax funds to finance the ministry of a church.

 

• Freedom to govern a church. In Christ and through the Holy Spirit, believer priests are competent to govern themselves in an autonomous church (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Therefore, they should be free to do so apart from efforts of control by either church or government authorities as long as public health and safety are not endangered.

 

• Freedom to witness and minister. Baptists believe that believer priests have responsibility to share the gospel with others and to minister to others in Christ’s name. Thus Baptists insist that people ought to be free to evangelize and minister without interference from any human authorities (Acts 5:29-42).

 

 

 

*My source for this material was from The People Called Baptists George Daniel, 1919

and Baptists Distinctives William Pines, 2007

 

This post shows no sign of you skeptically appraising your Baptist beliefs, Ironhorse.

 

If you don't want to do that or can't do that, please say so.

 

Posting long extracts of dogma is NO kind of substitute for skeptically appraising your own beliefs.

 

Please let me know (before posting anything else) if you will be skeptically appraising anything of your Baptist beliefs.

 

If you simply proceed in your current dogma-laden mode of posting, I'll take that as a definite, 'No'.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I just want to throw in a couple of things...

 

It seems to me that what Ironhorse is saying is that for him, Christianity was a foregone conclusion.  The only decision he made was would he be a Baptist as opposed to some other Christian denomination. I'm assuming that his parent's library didn't have a lot of Bart Erhman or Richard Dawkins books in it.

 

Also, while I agree and upvoted Astreja's coercion post,  I suppose that telling someone about how to 'flee the wrath to come' could also be seen as giving a warning if a fiery Hell is also a foregone conclusion.

It's not a gun to the head "your money or your life" situation, it's more like the weatherman telling me there's a tornado coming down my street. The weatherman doesn't coerce me to head to the basement, he gives a warning of what is coming, and suggests a way to safety.   

 

Oh and another thing, Dude.

If there's a weatherman telling you there's a tornado approaching, would you automatically believe him..?  You see there an issue of faith and trust involved in his warning.  If he told this but gave you no evidence that his warning was true, but simply required you to take it on faith, then is he really offering you a free choice..?

 

Ditto with Baptists proselytizing.

They require you to take it on faith from them that Hell is your inevitable fate if you don't believe in Jesus.  They offer no evidence that you can objectively test that this is so.  They require you to decide in the total absence of evidence.  That you make the most important decision you can ever make without being able to check anything.

 

So, is an evidence-free, all or nothing decision, made under the threat of eternal suffering really a free and fair one..?

 

That's NOT coercion..?

 

 

BAA,

 

I was just remembering what I thought about Hell and warnings back in the day.  I didn't see Hell as a punishment for unbelief.

Hell was already there, having been created for the Devil and his angels. Who was going there in the end? Everybody...but then Jesus and the cross, because blah blah blah.

That's an oversimplified version of it, but what I'm saying is in the believer's mind, it isn't necessarily a coercion to warn somebody.

 

Consider a doctor that tells you, "If you don't take this pill, you'll die".  Is he forcing you to take the pill, or warning you of what will happen if you don't?   See what I mean?

 

The big difference of course is that a weatherman or a doctor are usually pretty accurate, and one does well to listen to their warnings.  They have evidence.  But to the Christian, Hell is just as real as the tornado and the illness and their faith is their evidence.  Warning a person to flee the wrath to come, in their minds, is just that...a warning. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't necessarily so that a Christian proselytizer uses coercion in the sense of coercion being a tool to manipulate a person's decision about Jesus.  I'm just throwing out an alternative way of looking at it.

 

 

Dude,

 

Please understand that it's no good going back to the old Christian apologetic arguments you used when you were a true believer.

You used them and accepted them, not by logic or critical thinking or by skeptical appraisal, but by faith, right..?  But in this thread I'm trying to get Ironhorse to stop accepting things by faith and to start thinking logically, critically and skeptically about his Baptist beliefs.

 

So, thinking skeptically and critically about your last posts, both of your analogies fail.  

You use a weatherman and a doctor to describe the role of the Baptist proselytizers, who are trying to save sinners from Hell.  But you portray the weatherman and the doctor as independent parties who have nothing to do with the cause of either the tornado or the fatal disease - these threats being metaphors for Hell.  

 

But do you not see the problem?

The Baptists are working for the very person who created the threat of Hell in the first place.  As such they become accomplices in God's act of threat and coercion.  Therefore, the Baptist's own rule of 'no coercion' is rendered null and void by who they are working for.  So it doesn't matter how genuinely concerned the Baptists are for the sinners they are trying to save.  They become tainted by God's evil by being his servants.  Unwitting, well-meaning and self-deluded servants, to be sure - but still accomplices in God's grand plan of coercion.

.

.

.

Do you see how your old apologetic arguments fall apart when looked at skeptically and critically?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[duderonomy]

 

.

Do you see how your old apologetic arguments fall apart when looked at skeptically and critically?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

BAA, I wasn't making an argument for anything, I was going more towards motive and intent of the believer, based on how I used to think as a Christian. 

I don't disagree with your points at all. 

 

I do think that for now I'll drop this, unless you want to discuss it more. It might be a good thread of it's own someday, but I don't want to distract from this one.  Another thing is the use of the terms skeptical and critical when it comes to examining a given thing. I wonder if some believers, not schooled in logical thinking (and I'm no expert myself) wonder when they hear such terms why they would want to "be skeptical or critical" about their own faith.  IOW, they may at some level get defensive. I used to, way back when, but again, that's for another thread.

 

In the meantime, I also agree with you that IH posting long copy and pastes bout dogma isn't the same as looking skeptically at the dogma itself and discussing it. Maybe he'll get the hang of it someday.

[Jeff]

He won't. He's persistent in spite of getting shot down every time.

[mymistake]

He won't. He's persistent in spite of getting shot down every time.

 

 

Fundies do not allow facts to shape their belief.  Their beliefs shield them from facts.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

.

Do you see how your old apologetic arguments fall apart when looked at skeptically and critically?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

BAA, I wasn't making an argument for anything, I was going more towards motive and intent of the believer, based on how I used to think as a Christian. 

I don't disagree with your points at all. 

 

I do think that for now I'll drop this, unless you want to discuss it more. It might be a good thread of it's own someday, but I don't want to distract from this one.  Another thing is the use of the terms skeptical and critical when it comes to examining a given thing. I wonder if some believers, not schooled in logical thinking (and I'm no expert myself) wonder when they hear such terms why they would want to "be skeptical or critical" about their own faith.  IOW, they may at some level get defensive. I used to, way back when, but again, that's for another thread.

 

In the meantime, I also agree with you that IH posting long copy and pastes bout dogma isn't the same as looking skeptically at the dogma itself and discussing it. Maybe he'll get the hang of it someday.

 

 

Ok Dude, I see that now and we're cool.

 

Yes, there's a lot of potential for other threads about stuff connected to this one.

 

But if I may just say one more thing about the sincerity of the 'true' believer.

Today, there will be deeply devout Muslims proselytizing in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, doing so with the specific intent of saving the souls of sinful people for Allah.  They will be just as genuine and sincere in their beliefs as the Baptist Christian Ironhorse is in his.  However, the way they want these new converts for Allah to save their souls is by detonating explosive vests in crowded public places and killing as many infidels in the name of the true God (Allah) as they can. These Muslims genuinely believe that the martyrs they recruit are guaranteed an eternity of bliss in Paradise by sacrificing their lives in this way. 

 

For them, these acts are pure, holy, just and good - because they are acts of devotion to Allah.

Just as Ironhorse knows certain things by faith, they also know this by faith.  Like Ironhorse, they are absolutely sincere in their beliefs.  Just as Ironhorse justifies his beliefs by referring to the Bible, they can justify their beliefs by referring to the Quran.  Just as Ironhorse does with his faith in Jesus, these Muslims see many things in the universe that they interpret (by faith) as signs of the hand of their god, Allah.  They were raised by believing (Muslim) parents and like Ironhorse, they didn't critically, skeptically and logically examine their parents beliefs before committing themselves (by faith) to Allah.

 

So the lesson is quite clear, Dude.

Faith, sincerity, genuineness of belief and devoutness of the believer are no guarantee that the true believer is behaving in a good and moral way.  To find out the true morality of their beliefs, the believer must suspend their belief and skeptically examine what they believe, instead of just accepting by faith that it is true.  And it looks like this exactly what Ironhorse doesn't want to do in this thread.  Just as a deeply devout Muslim would do, he falls back on dogma and faith.

 

I wonder what he'll do next..?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

IH posts: Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.

 

...

 

So then I can be a Baptist, interpret the bible however I like, and reject any ideas of hell, or tithing, or worship of Jesus. And call myself a Baptist. Sweet, I'm in.

 

Except, Baptists probably call themselves Baptists because they believe a certain way that is the 'Baptist' way. Can I venerate the Virgin Mary, pray the rosary, study catechism, go to confession once a week and still call myself a Baptist? Would other Baptists go for that? Probably not.

 

...

 

Regarding 'forced coercion'...let's just call it coercion. 'Forced coercion' is redundant. Coercion doesn't really occur during the evangelization phase. It's not a selling point, except maybe for the hard-headed. Coercion is more what keeps people in the group. Hell isnt really a selling point to the new Christian. Hell keeps the reluctant, fearful flow of dollars into the collection plate.